How do I refute claims that we Christians worship the Sun?

[losh14]

I offered to give an account of this symbol of Satan plonk right in front of St Peters. … Again I say, this phallic pagan symbol - representing the pagan religion Mithraism - was installed prior to the adoption of the Copernican heresy into the Church from 1741 to 1835.

Cassini, I dare say that neither power, nor principality, nor the long-dead Mithraic followers, nor even the defeated and doomed Satan, hold any monopoly over symbolism. If you were to tell me that the obelisk is supposed to remind me of some pagan deity’s genitalia, I’d have to say I’ve never seen the deity nor his privates and cannot attest to the veracity of your statement.

 

[losh14]

How do I refute claims from an atheist that we Christians worship the Sun.

Take your claimant to your nearest Catholic Church and ask him or her to find the obelisk. When your friend tires of this, ask him or her to find the central symbol of the church building. It should be obvious.

Maybe take your friend during Mass and ask what everyone is doing. If we’re all bowing in front of an obelisk, well that would be an obvious indicator of sun-god worship. But we’re probably reading, singing or listening, and if we are we have books open, and these are where our eyes and hence our minds are. Ask your friend to read one of these books - be it a Bible, a missal, or a hymnal, and look for indications of sun-worship.

Lastly, let me tell you an allegory.
When I was in sixth grade, I was small for my age and often teased. One of the boys in my class liked to shout “Ryan’s gay! Ryan’s gay!” referring to me, Ryan. I wasn’t fond of this, not the least of which because it was inaccurate. I tried reason: I challenged him to find any male in whom I had shown a romantic interest. I asked him to disprove my relationship with my then-girlfriend (well, it was 6th grade, it lasted two weeks anyway). Finally I realized reason would not prevail and I punched him in the face and was suspended for one week.

Please don’t punch your friend in the face. If he or she still doesn’t get it, just pat them on the head and give them a treat. There’s most likely a prejudicial mindset that is far more meaningful to his or her life than actually understanding about people who are different. Such a person can only be tolerated as they are inherently unreasonable and immune to any sort of logic.

 

[losh14]

It makes Jack Chick sound sober. Listen especially to the last two minutes… And the first…

I think Jack would take up drinking after watching that.
Not sure if I should thank you, but thanks anyway.

 

[cassini]

cassini;4631332:

I offered to give an account of this symbol of Satan plonk right in front of St Peters. … Again I say, this phallic pagan symbol - representing the pagan religion Mithraism - was installed prior to the adoption of the Copernican heresy into the Church from 1741 to 1835.

Cassini, I dare say that neither power, nor principality, nor the long-dead Mithraic followers, nor even the defeated and doomed Satan, hold any monopoly over symbolism. If you were to tell me that the obelisk is supposed to remind me of some pagan deity’s genitalia, I’d have to say I’ve never seen the deity nor his privates and cannot attest to the veracity of your statement.

Well losh, your post is a little confusing and mixed up. Are you telling me or asking me something? With all the promises you quote, how come Churchmen adopted that pagan symbolism of a solar system as an orthodox interpretation of the holy Scriptures, a symbolism that presented itself as an astronomical fact only to be rightly defined and declared as formal heresy by the Church in 1616 and 1633? Compared to that, the heliocentric symbol they allowed in front of St Peters is venial.

 

[losh14]

And that’s because he doesn’t know he does.

If one doesn’t know that one worships the sun, then one doesn’t really worship the sun. It’s not like eating soup and thinking it’s cake - you bloody well know its cake or you’ve never eaten either soup or cake before. When you talk of communication with transcendant figures, the perspective of the believer is precisely what matters. Hence why we are saved by Grace, not by God randomly liking one more than another.

Yes, Catholics do worship the sun by granting heliocentricism as the word of God…

So you’re saying that the sun goes around the earth? Here’s a treat, let me pat you on the head.

 

[FanChan]

Good try fanchan (your not chinese by any chance?), but whereas much of what you say is true, my original point is still vindicated. We know the thing IS a phallic symbol once the centrepiece of a pagan people who worshipped their god/devil (Psalm 95:5 says, “The gods of the gentiles are devils.” Saint Francis Xavier, one of the greatest missionaries in history said, “All the invocations of the pagans are hateful to God because all their gods are devils.”

Yes what you say is correct and the popes did not INTEND to use this devil’s spire as a devil spire, but a symbol of temporal power, just as Caligula brought it to Rome as a symbol of power. But it is a devil’s carving and it was he, not God, whose influence had it brought to Rome by way of human pride in their temporal power. Thereafter, whereas we know it was not put up by popes to act as a phallic symbol, it IS a phallic symbol. And that was my point many posts ago, the ones you shot down, that Catholics pay homage to a phallic symbol of the sun-worshipping pagans of old without knowing they do it.

Tell you what fanchan, given what you know now, would you have (I keep having to avoid the verb I want to use) put up this obelisk, this symbol of the devil worshiping/ child sacrificing ancient Egyptians?

First of all, no, I’m not Chinese. -chan is a Japanese term of endearment, and it’s what my friends call me. I’m an American who lived in Japan for a few years.

Second, even if one pope put that obelisk up to show off their temporal power, that doesn’t mean we have to tear it down because of that. It’s lost its meaning in the eyes of the public. Right now, it’s just a pretty neat monument, one of the defining images of St. Peter’s Square.

I happen to like obelisks. I think they’re fantastic works of architecture and art. To think that something so small and skinny can be built so tall without falling over is pretty awesome. That obelisk, so far as I know, has no distinguishing marks - save for the cross the Pope stuck on it, once again supporting the idea of the Church taking things and baptising them, making them new - so if someone was never told where it came from or what it originaly stood for, no one would ever know. No one would be twisted into thinking the Church worships the sun just by looking at it. It takes someone like you insisting that that’s so for someone to even consider it.

So, to answer you question, yes, I would have put it up, even knowing where it came from or what it originally stood for. Why? Because by uprooting it from its pagan home and bringing it somewhere holy, that work of art has a chance to do God glory, rather than continue to glorify the evil it once stood for. At least, it would be free to do that if people like you would just let it go.

 

[cassini]

Take your claimant to your nearest Catholic Church and ask him or her to find the obelisk. When your friend tires of this, ask him or her to find the central symbol of the church building. It should be obvious.

Maybe take your friend during Mass and ask what everyone is doing. If we’re all bowing in front of an obelisk, well that would be an obvious indicator of sun-god worship. But we’re probably reading, singing or listening, and if we are we have books open, and these are where our eyes and hence our minds are. Ask your friend to read one of these books - be it a Bible, a missal, or a hymnal, and look for indications of sun-worship.

Please don’t punch your friend in the face. If he or she still doesn’t get it, just pat them on the head and give them a treat. There’s most likely a prejudicial mindset that is far more meaningful to his or her life than actually understanding about people who are different. Such a person can only be tolerated as they are inherently unreasonable and immune to any sort of logic.

But do not remind your friend that the greatest place of Catholic worship has a replica of the Sun-worshipping Egyptians, the phallic centred, marked out ellipse of Heliopolis called St Peter’s square. And dont risk telling him that in 1820 churchmen decided to adopt the pagan doctrine of heliocentricism as the way to read the Bible.

 

[losh14]

Well losh, your post is a little confusing and mixed up. Are you telling me or asking me something?

I am telling you something. Let me clarify, then.
You are correct that long-dead pagan Romans thought that the obelisk honored the sun-deity’s genitalia. None of us here are long-dead pagan Romans. We don’t give the same association to the obelisk that they did and that you do.

Another example. A co-worker told me that I shouldn’t put up a Christmas tree because it, likewise, is a pagan genital symbol (for a Norse deity, I believe). Even after going home, I still didn’t see the similarity. I mean, neither the obelisk nor the Christmas tree resemble my own genitalia, but you’ll have to take my word for it. Nor did I associate the tree with a Norse deity. Come to think of it, I don’t associate anything with Norse deities unless someone forces the point.

So where follower of Norse paganism would look at my tree and see genitals, I look at my tree and see a symbol of everlasting life (evergreens are always green), which reminds of Jesus.

Likewise, when I look at an obelisk, I see a tall granite column that reminds me of the one in Washington D.C., and to me its just a piece of outdoor art. So while looking at the obelisk in St. Peter’s square reminds you of Mithra’s genitals, I don’t see it.

So the moral of the story is thus: why is your interpretation of a symbol any more relevant than my own?

With all the promises you quote, how come Churchmen adopted that pagan symbolism of a solar system as an orthodox interpretation of the holy Scriptures

You don’t believe in Jesus’ promises?

And what does an obelisk have to do with interpreting Scripture? We interpreted Scripture before Nero had the obelisk erected. Catholics died within sight of the obelisk because they believed in Scripture and refused to deny Christ.

Your argument is contrived and fails to be persuasive.

Again, here is a treat, let me pat you on the head.

 

[cassini]

If one doesn’t know that one worships the sun, then one doesn’t really worship the sun. It’s not like eating soup and thinking it’s cake - you bloody well know its cake or you’ve never eaten either soup or cake before. When you talk of communication with transcendant figures, the perspective of the believer is precisely what matters. Hence why we are saved by Grace, not by God randomly liking one more than another.

So you’re saying that the sun goes around the earth? Here’s a treat, let me pat you on the head.

I said: Catholics do worship the sun by granting heliocentricism as the word of God.

 

[losh14]

But do not remind your friend that the greatest place of Catholic worship has a replica of the Sun-worshipping Egyptians, the phallic centred, marked out ellipse of Heliopolis called St Peter’s square. And dont risk telling him that in 1820 churchmen decided to adopt the pagan doctrine of heliocentricism as the way to read the Bible.

And your point? I reiterate that you are the only one here who sees the obelisk as a focal point of pagan or satanic worship. I think that the most attention people pay to the obelisk is taking a picture, maybe posing by it. If they knew it were supposed to be genitalia, they’d probably be creeped out and just avoid it.

Your history is off. The ban on printing heliocentric works was lifted in 1757. In 1822, heliocentric works were allowed to be printed within Rome.

And how does heliocentrism allow one to interpret the Bible? Last I read it (this morning) Scripture presented theological truth. Heliocentrism describes the motion of objects in the solar system. I would not read Scripture to get an astronomy lesson, and I would not read Principia Mathematica to learn about Christ.

 

[cassini]

First of all, no, I’m not Chinese. -chan is a Japanese term of endearment, and it’s what my friends call me. I’m an American who lived in Japan for a few years.

Second, even if one pope put that obelisk up to show off their temporal power, that doesn’t mean we have to tear it down because of that. It’s lost its meaning in the eyes of the public. Right now, it’s just a pretty neat monument, one of the defining images of St. Peter’s Square.

I happen to like obelisks. I think they’re fantastic works of architecture and art. To think that something so small and skinny can be built so tall without falling over is pretty awesome. That obelisk, so far as I know, has no distinguishing marks - save for the cross the Pope stuck on it, once again supporting the idea of the Church taking things and baptising them, making them new - so if someone was never told where it came from or what it originaly stood for, no one would ever know. No one would be twisted into thinking the Church worships the sun just by looking at it. It takes someone like you insisting that that’s so for someone to even consider it.

So, to answer you question, yes, I would have put it up, even knowing where it came from or what it originally stood for. Why? Because by uprooting it from its pagan home and bringing it somewhere holy, that work of art has a chance to do God glory, rather than continue to glorify the evil it once stood for. At least, it would be free to do that if people like you would just let it go.

Thanks for that about your name fanchan. You did read that the original obelisk in Heliopolis had a cross on it. Rather than christianising it, they restored it to its original state. My how the Devil must be amused, Catholics now defending his symbol as Catholic in their holiest place… Well I for one would have smashed it up and put up a crucifix. My how that would have put the devil in his place.

 

[FanChan]

Thanks for that about your name fanchan. You did read that the original obelisk in Heliopolis had a cross on it. Rather than christianising it, they restored it to its original state. My how the Devil must be amused, Catholics now defending his symbol as Catholic in their holiest place… Well I for one would have smashed it up and put up a crucifix. My how that would have put the devil in his place.

Yeaah… I vote we stop replying to cassini now. I think anyone else who might read this and benefit from it has gotten all they’ll get from it, and it no longer does anyone any good to entertain him.

 

[losh14]

Thanks for that about your name fanchan. You did read that the original obelisk in Heliopolis had a cross on it. Rather than christianising it, they restored it to its original state. My how the Devil must be amused, Catholics now defending his symbol as Catholic in their holiest place… Well I for one would have smashed it up and put up a crucifix. My how that would have put the devil in his place.

I reiterate, for the point must not yet be clear, that we worship Christ alone, and we reject Satan by name. Symbols only hold power over those who believe in them. If we do not believe that the obelisk holds satanic power, then it has no power over us.

If a waiter blows his nose on the bread of a sandwich before bringing it to the table, would you condemn the diner for eating it?

 

[losh14]

Yeaah… I vote we stop replying to _____ now. I think anyone else who might read this and benefit from it has gotten all they’ll get from it, and it no longer does anyone any good to entertain him.

Good idea, fanchan.

So to sum up, dear lemon, your question. Tell your friend the truth, and if your friend does not believe you, that is his or her own problem.

 

[losh14]

I said: Catholics do worship the sun by granting heliocentricism as the word of God.

Have we?
If this were word-tennis, I’d call “unfounded assertion, 20-love”

 

[FanChan]

I did just find something interesting while trying to find some truth to cassini’s claim that the original obelisk had a cross on it (something I won’t believe until I’m shown proof. It doesn’t make sense that the original would have a cross on it, unless ancient egyptians equated crucifixion with their sun god somehow…)

All the Egyptian obelisks in Rome toppled down in the Middle Ages except this one. Egyptologist Labib Habachi gives a reason in his book: “Legend has it that in the Vatican Circus (Caligula Circus) innumerable Christians, including St. Peter, were put to death and that the reason this obelisk was not later overturned as were all the others in Rome was that it was looked upon as the last witness to the martyrdom of St. Peter.”

 

[cassini]

I am telling you something. Let me clarify, then.
You are correct that long-dead pagan Romans thought that the obelisk honored the sun-deity’s genitalia. None of us here are long-dead pagan Romans. We don’t give the same association to the obelisk that they did and that you do.

Another example. A co-worker told me that I shouldn’t put up a Christmas tree because it, likewise, is a pagan genital symbol (for a Norse deity, I believe). Even after going home, I still didn’t see the similarity. I mean, neither the obelisk nor the Christmas tree resemble my own genitalia, but you’ll have to take my word for it. Nor did I associate the tree with a Norse deity. Come to think of it, I don’t associate anything with Norse deities unless someone forces the point.

So where follower of Norse paganism would look at my tree and see genitals, I look at my tree and see a symbol of everlasting life (evergreens are always green), which reminds of Jesus.

Likewise, when I look at an obelisk, I see a tall granite column that reminds me of the one in Washington D.C., and to me its just a piece of outdoor art. So while looking at the obelisk in St. Peter’s square reminds you of Mithra’s genitals, I don’t see it.

So the moral of the story is thus: why is your interpretation of a symbol any more relevant than my own?

You don’t believe in Jesus’ promises?

And what does an obelisk have to do with interpreting Scripture? We interpreted Scripture before Nero had the obelisk erected. Catholics died within sight of the obelisk because they believed in Scripture and refused to deny Christ.

Your argument is contrived and fails to be persuasive.

Again, here is a treat, let me pat you on the head.

Losh, if you think the comparison of a Christmas tree and the original phallic symbol of the sun-worshipping Egyptian pagans are on par to one another, then I would find it hard to get through to you.
Now that I am aware of what obelisks symbolise, every time I see one I think of phallic symbols, Freemasonry and the declining Church.

I do believe in Jesis’s promise, but I do not use it to blind others to the successful tricks of the Devil.

Obelisks and sun-worshipping are inseperable as both are beliefs in the devil’s religion. This religion still exists in Freemasonry. It was the adoption of the sun-centred religion as a fact of nature in 1820 that changed how the Church interpreted Scripture. It rendered the Bible useless thereafter as a God-inspired revelation.

 

[cassini]

Yeaah… I vote we stop replying to cassini now. I think anyone else who might read this and benefit from it has gotten all they’ll get from it, and it no longer does anyone any good to entertain him.

Does this mean you have run out of excuses or cannot defend the undefensible, or you would rather not have the truth about things come out in the open?

 

[losh14]

Losh, if you think the comparison of a Christmas tree and the original phallic symbol of the sun-worshipping Egyptian pagans are on par to one another, then I would find it hard to get through to you.

Why not compare the two? Both are equally contrived to a modern Christian eye. The Norse are as entitled to their symbolism as are the Egyptians, and I, as a Christian, am empowered by Christ to not put stock in the defunct ideas of the Norse and the Egyptians.

Now that I am aware of what obelisks symbolise, every time I see one I think of phallic symbols, Freemasonry and the declining Church.

You’re entitled to think that. I’m aware that obelisks are large pointy things, and every time I see one I think of Washington D.C.

I do believe in Jesis’s promise, but I do not use it to blind others to the successful tricks of the Devil.

Who is Jesis? In my Bible, His Name is Jesus. Besides, that’s an unfair accusation. You have said that an obelisk is a trick of the devil and you are using it in a contrived attempt to undermine the Catholic faith, and doing so without approaching the substance of the Church, nor the weight of its history, nor its teachings.

Obelisks and sun-worshipping are inseperable as both are beliefs in the devil’s religion.

Name one sun-worshipper in Washington, D.C.

This religion still exists in Freemasonry.

Which the Church has condemned, and until the mid-20th century any Catholics involved in Freemasonry were automatically excommunicated.

It was the adoption of the sun-centred religion as a fact of nature in 1820 that changed how the Church interpreted Scripture. It rendered the Bible useless thereafter as a God-inspired revelation.

The Church did not adopt sun-centered religion when it ceased condemning heliocentric texts. We did not replace Jesus with Mithra. We did not change the story of the Crucifixion or the Resurrection. We did not change one word of the Bible, nor how we used it.

And nothing - not even the devil - has the power to render the Bible useless, nor remove God’s inspiration from it.

Clearly you are not a Christian. What are you, anyway, and why are you here?

 

[losh14]

Does this mean you have run out of excuses or cannot defend the undefensible, or you would rather not have the truth about things come out in the open?

Very well, game on.